SWAPAN KUMAR DAS Vs. MAYA RANI DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal the judgment dated 06.01.2000 passed by learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit (Divorce) 52 of 1994 refusing to dissolve a marriage has been put under challenge by the appellant husband.

(2.) The marriage which was sought to be dissolved by the appellant was solemnized on 13.12.1990 with the respondent herein in her parents' house at Ramnagar Road No.5, Agartala. The husband comes from the same Town having his house at Joynagar. At the time of marriage while the husband was posted at Agartala as Inspector. Sales Tax Department under the Government of Tripura, the wife, also a Govt. servant, was posted at Sabroom in South Tripura District. After the marriage, the couple peacefully and happily ushered into the conjugal bliss of their lives, but without continuity as they were serving in different places. Only on holidays or by taking have they could enjoy the conjugal bliss in the house of the appellant husband. After few months, in July, 1990 the appellant was transferred to Churaibari in North Tripura District while the respondent continued to serve in Sabroom, the two places being at extreme North point and South point of the State. They continued to meet and live together for brief period on holidays or by taking leave coming from Churafbari and Sabroom and staying in the house of the appellant. A son was born to them cm 24.01.1992 at Agartala when the appellant was at Churaibari. The respondent before the delivery came from Sabroom to Agartala and stayed in her husband's house with her in-laws. She was taken to the hospital by the younger brother of the appellant and after the birth of the son, she went to the house of her parents for better care and nursing. Upto this stage there was apparently nothing wrong between the spouses to sour their relation. When the Brata of the baby, a customary celebration on completion of a month from the birth, was to be organized and to attend that function the appellant came from Churaibari and sent Rs. 2,000/- and clothes through his brother (P.W. 2), the relation started to suffer hiccups. The money and the presents were handed over by P.W. 2 to the brother of the respondent on the day before the Brata, which was not taken kindly by the respondent. Perhaps she expected her husband's visit after reaching Agartala, but when she received the money and the gift instead, she might have been emotionally upset. She came to the house of her husband, met him, returned the money and the gift and went back to her parents' house. This was followed by visit of the appellant with his brother to the house of the respondent's parents. But they were allegedly not given due courtesy, which angered and annoyed the appellant. The conjugal relation thus went down with fissures surfacing and widening. Finally the couple ceased to live together even for brief period creating thereby an emotional cleavage. The prolonged estrangement prompted the appellant in the long run to file the suit for dissolution of their marriage.

(3.) The grounds taken by the appellant to build his case against his wife were (i) desertion and (ii) cruelty, which fall within the grounds provided in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') for dissolution of a Hindu marriage. To show a case of cruelty by the respondent, the appellant has narrated certain incidents and behaviour of his wife in his deposition before the learned trial court. His allegation is that though after the mar- riage she used to come from Sabroom on holidays and stay with him in his house, she used to visit her parents and show inclination to live with them. Secondly, she used to pick up quarrel with his mother and brothers. Thirdly, in her letters to him, she expressed that his mother and the brothers were enemies of the appellant. Fourthly, she used to put pressure on him to live separately from his mother and brothers. Fifthly, during the occasion of the Brata of his son, his money and gift were returned and he was not shown courtesy in her parents' house when he and his brother visited. All these acts, according to the appellant, constituted mental cruelty, which resulted to a mental separation. As regards other ground of desertion, it is the specific allegation of the appellant that since the date of Brata, the respondent chose not to return to the material home and live separately. These two grounds actuated the appellant to file the suit on 01.10.1994 after waiting for more than 2 years.